2018 GMC Terrain To Begin At $25,970

Wow, i actually could afford to buy this....interesting...hmmm...

Not bad... but getting optioned up will probably push it into the mid-30s with a Denali starting around $37k for a FWD model

Very cool, but sad as the C to D pillar blind spot is a deal breaker for me.

16 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Very cool, but sad as the C to D pillar blind spot is a deal breaker for me.

Its not for me, actually.

I continue to try and find something wrong with this vehicle and can't. If this is 450lbs lighter than my daughter's 'Nox.. the difference in HP from the V6 to this one's 2.0L will be null.. and based on my experience with the 2.0L in other vehicles.. probably make it more spry. Good looking exterior.. and that interior is a hit. It actually looks luxury, IMO, even in base form

These are great on the inside, a strong contender for those that don't need the cargo space of the top sellers.

4 minutes ago, frogger said:

These are great on the inside, a strong contender for those that don't need the cargo space of the top sellers.

They are tweeners.  They start about $2k more than a CR-V, but have more space... or $4k less than a Pilot and have less space. 

Behind the back seat they are more Tucson sized.   The specifications state just under 30 cubic feet cargo capacity vs the just under 40 cubic feet of the Rogue, CRV, Rav4.  Maybe those 30 are more user friendly than the 40ish in the mainstream somehow.  The Regal Sportback has 31, but I doubt it is all as usable as a traditional CUV.

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by frogger

Upon further inspection, I am still not sold on the exterior of the Terrain. There is just a lack of cohesive design here. I'm sure the interior is light years better but I would not be able to get past the outside of this thing. 

Just now, surreal1272 said:

Upon further inspection, I am still not sold on the exterior of the Terrain. There is just a lack of cohesive design here. I'm sure the interior is light years better but I would not be able to get past the outside of this thing. 

Odd, after years of being the outsider here and liking foreign made vehicles...GM builds something I would really like to own and no one else likes it.

I must not be living right.

Yeah..  But the truth of the matter is that most who buy this type of vehicle are not looking to carry around tree stumps and what not. The most they will pack in these or any in their class are gonna be bags of groceries. These.. THESE.. more than even the Yukons and Acadia sizes.. are the station wagons of our day. Oh.. Speaking of the Yukon and Acadia and Acadia+..  GMC has other options they can present to any custom looks for more room. More options in fact.. than any Honda dealership 

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

I continue to try and find something wrong with this vehicle and can't. If this is 450lbs lighter than my daughter's 'Nox.. the difference in HP from the V6 to this one's 2.0L will be null.. and based on my experience with the 2.0L in other vehicles.. probably make it more spry. Good looking exterior.. and that interior is a hit. It actually looks luxury, IMO, even in base form

I would agree with your sentiments.  I am not a GM SUV type of a guy, but I see a test drive in my future.  I really, really like it...a lot!

Edited May 4, 20178 yr by A Horse With No Name

18 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Odd, after years of being the outsider here and liking foreign made vehicles...GM builds something I would really like to own and no one else likes it.

I must not be living right.

Your living just fine! Over all the look is fine with me too. I just have issue with that Blind Spot between C&D as big as Texas and those hideous head lights.

14 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Yeah..  But the truth of the matter is that most who buy this type of vehicle are not looking to carry around tree stumps and what not. The most they will pack in these or any in their class are gonna be bags of groceries. These.. THESE.. more than even the Yukons and Acadia sizes.. are the station wagons of our day. Oh.. Speaking of the Yukon and Acadia and Acadia+..  GMC has other options they can present to any custom looks for more room. More options in fact.. than any Honda dealership 

ohhh   very much so...and the interior is much nicer than any Honda product!

Just now, dfelt said:

Your living just fine! Over all the look is fine with me too. I just have issue with that Blind Spot between C&D as big as Texas and those hideous head lights.

I think it is a little bit polarizing, but we will get used to it.  Better that than the snow plow predator front of a Lexus SUV....my sons girlfriends father bought one of those Lexus...son and his GF hate the thing with a purple passion.

@William Maley Bill do you know if they will have the All-Terrain package on this at launch? I love everything that is in the Denali package but the Chrome. Give me Monochromatic please!  

2 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

ohhh   very much so...and the interior is much nicer than any Honda product!

I think it is a little bit polarizing, but we will get used to it.  Better that than the snow plow predator front of a Lexus SUV....my sons girlfriends father bought one of those Lexus...son and his GF hate the thing with a purple passion.

Love Predator Movies, TOTALLY AGREE as I HATE the Predator look on Lexus Auto's.

3 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@William Maley Bill do you know if they will have the All-Terrain package on this at launch? I love everything that is in the Denali package but the Chrome. Give me Monochromatic please!  

Love Predator Movies, TOTALLY AGREE as I HATE the Predator look on Lexus Auto's.

 

At the moment, no. That could change in the next year or two.

15 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Your living just fine! Over all the look is fine with me too. I just have issue with that Blind Spot between C&D as big as Texas and those hideous head lights.

This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the front end (and that's not a good thing). 

27 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the front end (and that's not a good thing). 

 

I disagree....

34 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

This was the first thing I thought of when I saw the front end (and that's not a good thing). 

 

Yea, this is the ugliest 4Runner to date. I just do not get Toyota's Styling thought. At least they keept the visibility between the C & D pillars with a nice big Window.

44 minutes ago, William Maley said:

At the moment, no. That could change in the next year or two.

I can see 1yr but 2yrs would be just stupid IMHO. Personally they should have it at launch. Thank you for giving us your input Bill.

I will say the more I look at the interior and the info on the web site, the more I like the Interior. Very luxury like and I see no reason why anyone would not like being inside this CUV! I especially love the Sky Roof!

http://www.gmc.com/suvs/2018-terrain-small-suv.html

 So the SLT would do me fine as I can get the either the 1.6L Turbo Diesel or 2.0L Turbo Gas. I can get just about everything else I want.  Yet what Moron at GMC feels that only Denali passengers would want second row heated seats and Surround Vision? Jeep does this on their lower trim versions that this will compete with, GMC needs to step up.

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

 So the SLT would do me fine as I can get the either the 1.6L Turbo Diesel or 2.0L Turbo Gas. I can get just about everything else I want.  Yet what Moron at GMC feels that only Denali passengers would want second row heated seats and Surround Vision? Jeep does this on their lower trim versions that this will compete with, GMC needs to step up.

Agree on them stepping up, but I can be happy with a very basic vehicle.

OK, Another knock AGAINST this new Terrain, why does only Chevrolet get two tone interiors? This is lovely:

Yes the Equinox dash with contrasting materials, while probably using some cheaper materials, is nicer to look at IMO.

But it looks like the rear pillars and the tiny window between them are subpar

https://www.cars.com/articles/which-small-suv-in-2017-has-the-best-rear-visibility-1420695173096/

11 minutes ago, frogger said:

Yes the Equinox dash with contrasting materials, while probably using some cheaper materials, is nicer to look at IMO.

But it looks like the rear pillars and the tiny window between them are subpar

https://www.cars.com/articles/which-small-suv-in-2017-has-the-best-rear-visibility-1420695173096/

 

Yup agree they also went with a sliver window. totally sucks.

I think the pricing is good, it is a little more than a Toyota, Chevy or Mazda, but you expect that, GMC is positioned a little higher.  

GMC needs a vehicle below the Terrain like in the Jeep Renegade segment.  

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I disagree....

It's not dead on, mind you but the Terrains headlight treatment looks like what's going on underneath the 4Runners headlights. Just design overkill to me. 

2 hours ago, dfelt said:

I will say the more I look at the interior and the info on the web site, the more I like the Interior. Very luxury like and I see no reason why anyone would not like being inside this CUV! I especially love the Sky Roof!

http://www.gmc.com/suvs/2018-terrain-small-suv.html

 

The interior is a huge plus but getting past the outside would be the trick for me. 

33 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

It's not dead on, mind you but the Terrains headlight treatment looks like what's going on underneath the 4Runners headlights. Just design overkill to me. 

The interior is a huge plus but getting past the outside would be the trick for me. 

You might warm up to it with time. I do think that I will test drive one when I buy my next car.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

I think the pricing is good, it is a little more than a Toyota, Chevy or Mazda, but you expect that, GMC is positioned a little higher.  

GMC needs a vehicle below the Terrain like in the Jeep Renegade segment.  

Really agree on the one vehicle lower thing.  Not so much for cost but for size.  The Encore is too small for me and if anything the Terrain is too large.

..and one more comment for surreal, agree on the Interior.

Yeah I see zero reason for GMC not getting a Trax variant.. perhaps a lil more emphasis on the off road capabilities like the Trax Activ concept 

12 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Yeah I see zero reason for GMC not getting a Trax variant.. perhaps a lil more emphasis on the off road capabilities like the Trax Activ concept 

I would upvote that idea by a hundred if I could.

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

You might warm up to it with time. I do think that I will test drive one when I buy my next car.

Really agree on the one vehicle lower thing.  Not so much for cost but for size.  The Encore is too small for me and if anything the Terrain is too large.

..and one more comment for surreal, agree on the Interior.

Not likely. Not really a fan of CUVs as it is. The previous Terrain at least looked like a real SUV even if it wasn't. This one goes in completely the opposite direction. Oh well. Can't win them all. 

I agree on the interior, looks great.  i can't get past the Nissan style rear though. 

Hmmm...with the diesel...this might prove quite the highway cruiser...

16 hours ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

Yeah I see zero reason for GMC not getting a Trax variant.. perhaps a lil more emphasis on the off road capabilities like the Trax Activ concept 

Why Not take the Trax and make it a Hummer Capable competitor to Jeep. Totally Focused as a GMC Trax All-Terrain version only.

OK, So I have looked and looked and can only find the following from GM

1.5L Turbo Gas Motor 170HP, ??? Torque

2.0L Turbo Gas Motor 252HP, ??? Torque

1.6L Turbo Diesel Motor 136HP, 250 LB-FT of Torque.

This diesel is less HP and Torque than the older 2.0L diesel that the Cruz had. and why no Torque #'s on the other engines? While initially I was excited by the Diesel option, this is a big let down to me in the poor Numbers and I wonder if all they really did was make it quiet and go after MPG only?

33 minutes ago, dfelt said:

OK, So I have looked and looked and can only find the following from GM

1.5L Turbo Gas Motor 170HP, ??? Torque

2.0L Turbo Gas Motor 252HP, ??? Torque

1.6L Turbo Diesel Motor 136HP, 250 LB-FT of Torque.

This diesel is less HP and Torque than the older 2.0L diesel that the Cruz had. and why no Torque #'s on the other engines? While initially I was excited by the Diesel option, this is a big let down to me in the poor Numbers and I wonder if all they really did was make it quiet and go after MPG only?

1.5T - around 184 lb-ft (about the same as the 1.5T in the Malibu gets)

2.0T - around 260 lb-ft (about the same as the 2.0T in the Malibu gets)

1.6 Diesel - The old 2.0 was not a GM motor. and 250 lb-ft will be more than enough to move this new lighter Terrain along smartly, especially with a 9-speed automatic.

You have to basically ignore horsepower numbers in diesels. They're low because diesels turn at half the RPM that gasoline motors do and still produce the same torque. Horsepower is a measurement of torque at a specific RPM... since the RPM is lower, the horsepower numbers are lower.  In passenger cars, horsepower is nearly meaningless..... in diesel passenger cars, it is entirely meaningless. 

21 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1.5T - around 184 lb-ft (about the same as the 1.5T in the Malibu gets)

2.0T - around 260 lb-ft (about the same as the 2.0T in the Malibu gets)

1.6 Diesel - The old 2.0 was not a GM motor. and 250 lb-ft will be more than enough to move this new lighter Terrain along smartly, especially with a 9-speed automatic.

You have to basically ignore horsepower numbers in diesels. They're low because diesels turn at half the RPM that gasoline motors do and still produce the same torque. Horsepower is a measurement of torque at a specific RPM... since the RPM is lower, the horsepower numbers are lower.  In passenger cars, horsepower is nearly meaningless..... in diesel passenger cars, it is entirely meaningless. 

I just like the diesel rumble, actually...this thing with a mild tune and an exhaust would be awesome...

19 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

1.5T - around 184 lb-ft (about the same as the 2.0T in the Malibu gets)

2.0T - around 260 lb-ft (about the same as the 2.0T in the Malibu gets)

1.6 Diesel - The old 2.0 was not a GM motor. and 250 lb-ft will be more than enough to move this new lighter Terrain along smartly, especially with a 9-speed automatic.

You have to basically ignore horsepower numbers in diesels. They're low because diesels turn at half the RPM that gasoline motors do and still produce the same torque. Horsepower is a measurement of torque at a specific RPM... since the RPM is lower, the horsepower numbers are lower.  In passenger cars, horsepower is nearly meaningless..... in diesel passenger cars, it is entirely meaningless. 

Much appreciated Drew, while I know the HP # is lower and I tend to ignore it as Torque is much more important, I was surprised that the Torque number was 16 lb-ft less than the old engine. I was hoping to maintain or go higher on torque to really make it scoot especially in AWD mode. Wait and see how people think when it comes out.

Just now, dfelt said:

Much appreciated Drew, while I know the HP # is lower and I tend to ignore it as Torque is much more important, I was surprised that the Torque number was 16 lb-ft less than the old engine. I was hoping to maintain or go higher on torque to really make it scoot especially in AWD mode. Wait and see how people think when it comes out.

There are 3 more gears in the box over the old 2.0T diesel. It'll do fine.

45 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

There are 3 more gears in the box over the old 2.0T diesel. It'll do fine.

...and looking forward to a test drive to verify this....should be enjoyable!

8 hours ago, dfelt said:

Why Not take the Trax and make it a Hummer Capable competitor to Jeep. Totally Focused as a GMC Trax All-Terrain version only.

OK!!! OK!!!... did U understand me saying OK!!!??? I have said about a thousand times that GMC should not only house the profit making Denali sub-brand.. but also the profit potential of a Hummer sub-brand. Call it Alpha (which was a trim of Hummer) if they like.. 

18 minutes ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

OK!!! OK!!!... did U understand me saying OK!!!??? I have said about a thousand times that GMC should not only house the profit making Denali sub-brand.. but also the profit potential of a Hummer sub-brand. Call it Alpha (which was a trim of Hummer) if they like.. 

Something like how Jeep uses the Trailhawk sub-brand for it's trail-rated variants...(now across 4 model lines).

Edited May 6, 20178 yr by Cubical-aka-Moltar

44 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Something like how Jeep uses the Trailhawk sub-brand for it's trail-rated variants...(now across 4 model lines).

Exactly!

1 hour ago, Cmicasa the Great said:

OK!!! OK!!!... did U understand me saying OK!!!??? I have said about a thousand times that GMC should not only house the profit making Denali sub-brand.. but also the profit potential of a Hummer sub-brand. Call it Alpha (which was a trim of Hummer) if they like.. 

So True, we are in Sync, now if we can just keep saying this so GM takes notice and does it!  

I'd be good with the base model here...

7-speaker Bose is the top stereo?  Okay...

On 5/5/2017 at 0:41 PM, dfelt said:

Much appreciated Drew, while I know the HP # is lower and I tend to ignore it as Torque is much more important, I was surprised that the Torque number was 16 lb-ft less than the old engine. I was hoping to maintain or go higher on torque to really make it scoot especially in AWD mode. Wait and see how people think when it comes out.

The 1.5T is not identical to the Malibu's engine. I believe I read that It has a different turbocharger, but in any case, it makes 203 lb-ft of torque, which is also documented in first drive reviews of the new Equinox. The GMC will get a 9-speed automatic standard, the Equinox 1.5T only gets a 6-speed.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/chevrolet/equinox/2018/2018-chevrolet-equinox-first-drive-review/